Back
K. BABU
O. P. Ashraf, S/o. Muhammedkunhi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
(K. Babu, J.)
The challenge in this Crl. Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 30.12.2004 in C.C.No.288 of 2002 convicting the revision petitioner/accused under Sections 51(a) and 52A r/w 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘the Act’ for short) passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur and confirmed by the Sessions Court, Thalassery, in the judgment dated 24.01.2012 in Crl.Appeal No.15 of 2005.
2. The prosecution case is that the accused was found engaged in the sale of fake audio cassettes on 10.10.2001 at 16.00hrs on the footpath in front of building bearing No.KM 35/1203 at the northern side of the road leading to Muneeswaran kovil in Kannur.
3. The offences were detected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur Town Police Station. The Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur Town Police Station, conducted a part of the investigation. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur Town Police Station, completed the investigation and submitted the Final Report.
4. The trial Court and the Sessions Court concurrently found that the accused committed the offences alleged.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the prosecution failed to establis
The prosecution must prove all elements of copyright infringement, including ownership and the nature of the alleged infringing copies, for a conviction to be upheld.
The prosecution must establish evidence of copyright infringement, ownership of the copyright, and the content of the infringing material to convict under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The possession of spurious goods does not necessarily constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
No prima facie case exists for copyright infringement in the sale of duplicate spare parts; FIR is quashed as an abuse of the court's process.
The principle that if one accused is acquitted, the other co-accused cannot be punished was central to the court's decision in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-A1.
Punishment must be commensurate with gravity of offence.
Where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for, the conduct of the b....
Offence under Section 63 of Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
